No noise on impeachment

[Lucifer_Carroll]

So what's with the dead calm surrounding the Deocratic trounce to relevant power?

There were jokes about bipartisanship and wahtnot but from what I can tell, they're actually just being bipartisan. Where's the investigations over the many impeachable and indeed treasonable actions by this administration over the last 6 years.

No president or even the collection of all the presidents there have ever been have ever done more to unravel the civil liberties this country was founded on or so utterly destroyed our moral high ground. No president has ever so dismantled our anti-terrorism forces, committed so many acts that are obviously treason against our country, and otherwise run roughshod against so many international treaties.

Nixon was impeached for coverup, Clinton for lies under oath. Impeachment is the least we should be doing to Bush for what he has done in this country.

And yet from the Democrats, a few meager hints and then nothing. Are they letting craven cowardice prevent them from doing the duty patriotic Republicans should have done instead of wimpily supporting their party?

And if that is the case. If Democrats follow their Republican forebears and let this president off the hook for a sickening list of high crimes, how high should we hang the ropes for them?

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I really hope that doesn't start. Lord knows I'm no fan of Dubya, but any impeachment trial or even investigation at this point would just turn into a giant Dog & Pony show for the press and serve no real purpose. Remember Starr? Talk about a rediculous show for the press.

Unfortunatly I doubt that will stop some damn fool senator from starting it.

 

[cloudy]

I think that maybe, just maybe, some folks in power realize that calling for impeachment right now would just further divide a country that's dangerously divided as it is.

Does he deserve it? Absolutely. I've never been so ashamed to be American.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Dangerously divided is bullshit. If we're having a Civil War, we're having a Civil War. Patriotism means more than that. It means more than politically wise or worries about being divisive.

If a president commits treason, if he so actively works against the Constitution, then impeachment needs to occur. It's the check in place for when a president oversteps his bounds. We're not in an autocracy or a monarchy. We do not need to fear God's wrath if we separate his chosen from his place of power nor do we need to fear the autocrat's forces if we move against him (and fearing divisiveness (something we've lived through for five fucking years straight) is indeed no different from that).

If we're fearing these things over supporting the Constitution, then frankly our country has gone terribly wrong and we are no longer operating anything akin to what our founding fathers dictated when they founded this country.

Patriotism, adherence to Democracy and our system of government means putting aside party differences to excise those who overstep the bounds. This government has done more and if allowed to go free will set a precedent for all following presidents that will either end in autocracy or Civil War.

If we impeach now, if we roll back at least those crimes against the Constitution and those international treaties we've openly flouted. If we do all that, we make a statement that we stand for our country. If our political differences and worries limit that, then we're fighting over ash. We've proven that Republican, Democrat, we could care less about the country we supposedly love with jongoistic passion.

If that's the case, it doesn't matter anymore what's politically expedient, what may lead to divisiveness. We're already divisive. Bush made us divisive. It's time to be Americans too. Otherwise this glorious experiment is shit and there is no reason to keep fellating its corpse.

 

[cloudy]

Dangerously divided is bullshit. If we're having a Civil War, we're having a Civil War. Patriotism means more than that. It means more than politically wise or worries about being divisive.

If a president commits treason, if he so actively works against the Constitution, then impeachment needs to occur. It's the check in place for when a president oversteps his bounds. We're not in an autocracy or a monarchy. We do not need to fear God's wrath if we separate his chosen from his place of power nor do we need to fear the autocrat's forces if we move against him (and fearing divisiveness (something we've lived through for five fucking years straight) is indeed no different from that).

If we're fearing these things over supporting the Constitution, then frankly our country has gone terribly wrong and we are no longer operating anything akin to what our founding fathers dictated when they founded this country.

Patriotism, adherence to Democracy and our system of government means putting aside party differences to excise those who overstep the bounds. This government has done more and if allowed to go free will set a precedent for all following presidents that will either end in autocracy or Civil War.

If we impeach now, if we roll back at least those crimes against the Constitution and those international treaties we've openly flouted. If we do all that, we make a statement that we stand for our country. If our political differences and worries limit that, then we're fighting over ash. We've proven that Republican, Democrat, we could care less about the country we supposedly love with jongoistic passion.

If that's the case, it doesn't matter anymore what's politically expedient, what may lead to divisiveness. We're already divisive. Bush made us divisive. It's time to be Americans too. Otherwise this glorious experiment is shit and there is no reason to keep fellating its corpse.

eh....I won't be american much longer. I've already thrown my hands up in disgust. I'm jumping ship.

 

[rgraham666]

Sorry Luc.

I'm glad they're not pursuing impeachment. As cd said, it would just make things worse, give people more reasons to hate each other.

As if they didn't have enough already.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Sorry Luc.

I'm glad they're not pursuing impeachment. As cd said, it would just make things worse, give people more reasons to hate each other.

As if they didn't have enough already.

They already have all the reasons they need and keeping these laws and a precedent of not punishing those that do this in America for personal power and ideology will just lead to future presidents giving those who support party before country more reason to hate each other and those who support country before party more reason to hate both.

America under Nixon was divided, but impeachment was right and neccessary.

It's neccessary again for this final check against autocracy to not be meaningless. By subverting it to impeach a president on a technicality, on the lowest possible means needed, they took step one to invalidating the check. Giving them a pass here is step 2. Step 3 is merely autocratic kingly presidents.

At that point fearing Civil War is moot and my patriotism is not enough to keep me here.

I would be repeating this if this was a Democrat in power and every Republican and Democrats were each literally holding guns to each other throats and aliens were blowing up our cities.

It's the patriotism that most Americans claim but few uphold.

But apparently I'm alone.

And yes, I realize you're not American.

I'm just sad that there seems no way to redeem my homeland from its darkest days so far.

 

[Xelebes]

The pirate ship is already flotsam. Why be the cruel man and sandbag the stranded?

 

[Belegon]

Impeachment might be sort term satisfying...but it would be long term trouble.

The fight for the presidency in two years and to retain the majority is what is more important for the long term....ironically, it is the actions of the republicans against Clinton that caused many moderate americans to be so jaded about these "politics as usual".

Those americans would see these steps as basically revenge minded thinking...regressive, not progressive. For the good of the country, democrats need to resist the temptation to hit back. Otherwise, 2008 is very unpredictable. Luc, how would you like to see Bush impeached...and then have a Republican president in 2009 and lose control of the senate?

Before you set out for revenge, dig two graves...

 

[shereads]

There are at least two obstacles to an impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney:

1) No sex scandal

2) War is time- and labor-intensive

Clinton was cursed with a healthy economy and a relatively peaceful two terms, which left the opposition bored. You know what they say about idle hands.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Impeachment might be sort term satisfying...but it would be long term trouble.

The fight for the presidency in two years and to retain the majority is what is more important for the long term....ironically, it is the actions of the republicans against Clinton that caused many moderate americans to be so jaded about these "politics as usual".

Those americans would see these steps as basically revenge minded thinking...regressive, not progressive. For the good of the country, democrats need to resist the temptation to hit back. Otherwise, 2008 is very unpredictable. Luc, how would you like to see Bush impeached...and then have a Republican president in 2009 and lose control of the senate?

Before you set out for revenge, dig two graves...

For the ability to definitively say treason and the erosion of civil liberties will never be supported in a president and when committed leads to real personal consequences and thus hobble the neoconservatives drive towards autocracy now and for the next 20 years, I'll gladly take another 8 years of unnecessary wars and "family values."

And remember, linking Clinton with impeachment and lots of "bad dog, no sex", they were able to win 2000 and forever taint the Clinton presidency with a similar stain to Nixon without him actually doing anything heinous.

It's hardly revenge. Revenge would be personally strangling the monkey bastard with his smug silver spoon. This is about defining what a president can and cannot do and what he will be allowed to get away with. If a president learns, I can throw away the Constitution if it wouldn't be politically sound to punish me then there are no longer checks against the autocrat and the system just becomes a paper shell waiting for the next abuser and the civil war that will follow.

 

[elsol]

Because Impeachment is to Democrats as Iraq is to Republicans.

 

[Boota]

I agree with Luc.

Not punishing this behavior is the same as condoning it. Not only should he be impeached it should be followed by a criminal trial.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Because Impeachment is to Democrats as Iraq is to Republicans.

Sigh...the fact that you're right and that that's all the Democrats in power give a shit about (not about wielding any power whatsoever when they have it) are part of the myriad of reasons why I hate the two-party system.

Party before country complicitly treasonous bastards.

The focus groups say actually standing up for anything is bad. The same focus groups which has been telling them to lay down and die ever since Bill Clinton got elected. And they will use these same lying stupid focus groups to confirm their image of spineless useless fucktards whose only role is the retardation of the rate at which suck accumulates to the whole world and sell what this country is in the meantime.

Let me depict what will occur. The Democrats play dead. The neocons who have gagged up the Republican party will perhaps be beaten in 2008, but if the Democrats welch on their campaign promises, this is hardly guaranteed. Let's say they do win. They remove a quarter of the massively illegal infrastructure of Bush just in time for the next autocratic wannabe neocon to roll back civil liberties again. The same way they did for the economy.

Traitorous cowards all of them.

No wonder I'm a registered independent.

 

[shereads]

I agree with Luc.

Not punishing this behavior is the same as condoning it. Not only should he be impeached it should be followed by a criminal trial.

I agree that doing nothing will clear the way for future knuckle-draggers and their handlers to wreak mayhem. But an impeachment takes time. Wouldn't it be more efficient to have Lynsey whatshername photograph the entire administration in a nude human pyramid, exact their confessions by whatever means Cheney would have condoned if it were happening to someone else in a secret prison, then publish the results on the internet, donate their Halliburton and Mobil Oil stock to a charitable foundation for children orphaned by the war, and ship Bush/Cheney off to Iraq where they could share a studio apartment in the Green Zone with Ahmad Chalabi?

The whole thing shouldn't take more than a week. Then we can all move on in a spirit of bipartisanship.


~ ~ ~



For Luc and other proponents of a not-this-system system:

Bill Maher, Nov. 17

New Rule: Let the Bush twins have a cocktail. You know, every time one of the Bush twins is spotted with a drink, somebody puts a picture of it on the Internet. Who cares?! You don't worry about a Bush when they're drinking. Worry about them when they get sober! These girls are 24, and I, for one, applaud their self-control. If my dad were President Bush, I'd be drunk in public so often, James Baker would have me killed.

New Rule: When the Iraq Study Group gets done studying Iraq, they have to study America. Now, I know liberals have been on a high these last ten days. And it can't be the meth because that's a gay evangelical drug. But, let's remember that all that really happened was Republicans went so bat-shit for so long that common sense seemed like a new idea.

But we still don't have real diversity. Oh, Congress looks like America, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and whatever else is in Barack Obama—but diversity of thought? There's not one atheist in Congress, not one person who favors legalizing drugs, not even one who'd admit they like to party! Except Nancy Pelosi, she's a freak.

Oh, if only she were. But Nancy Pelosi isn't going to try to cut the defense budget or really tax gasoline or socialize hospitals. The far right has taken over the Republican Party, but the far left? Doesn't even exist.

If we were really looking for a new direction, we wouldn't just change Congress, we'd have another Constitutional Convention, as Thomas Jefferson suggested we do.

That's right. Jefferson said, "Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision every 20 years." Because no founder, no matter how brilliant, could have imagined the iPod! Or global warming. Or assault rifles. Or roving wiretaps. They couldn't imagine using toilet paper instead of bark!

If Ben Franklin got beamed in to visit us today, the first thing he'd say is, "For $17 I get porn on the hotel TV all day?" And then he'd say, "You guys are still using that same old thing we wrote over 200 years ago, that we told you to revise?! That's so nuts, hemp must still be legal!"

So I could name a dozen things that could use a rewrite in the Constitution, like getting rid of the Electoral College. And getting rid of "corporate personhood." But, for today, let's just start with that vague part about what you can get impeached for. How about, starting unnecessary wars, yes; getting blown, no.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the 22nd Amendment that says you can't run for president more than twice? Because that's just hatin'. If a guy can win the popular vote, he should be able to run, or that's not a democracy. Bill Clinton should be able to run for president in 2008, period. It would be worth it just to see him debate Hillary.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

So what's with the dead calm surrounding the Deocratic trounce to relevant power?

There were jokes about bipartisanship and wahtnot but from what I can tell, they're actually just being bipartisan. Where's the investigations over the many impeachable and indeed treasonable actions by this administration over the last 6 years.

No president or even the collection of all the presidents there have ever been have ever done more to unravel the civil liberties this country was founded on or so utterly destroyed our moral high ground. No president has ever so dismantled our anti-terrorism forces, committed so many acts that are obviously treason against our country, and otherwise run roughshod against so many international treaties.

Nixon was impeached for coverup, Clinton for lies under oath. Impeachment is the least we should be doing to Bush for what he has done in this country.

And yet from the Democrats, a few meager hints and then nothing. Are they letting craven cowardice prevent them from doing the duty patriotic Republicans should have done instead of wimpily supporting their party?

And if that is the case. If Democrats follow their Republican forebears and let this president off the hook for a sickening list of high crimes, how high should we hang the ropes for them?

To answer some of your questions or comments: There has been some noise about impeachment. Nothing very serious but not a dead calm either.

The newly elected members of Congress haven't taken office yet. Until they do, they can't really do anything.

John Adams probably did more to try to "unravel the civil liberties this country was founded on" than anybody else. During his administration, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize the president, members of Congress, etc. People were actually convicted of this, but the law was later declared to be unconstitutional, which it obviously was.

Nixon was not impeached although he might have been if he had not resigned.

Nobody expects any serious impeachment movement because everybody knows it would be a waste of everybody's time. In the very unlikely event that W would be impeached by the House, he would be acquitted by the Senate.

You said: "No president has ever so dismantled our anti-terrorism forces". That's ridiculous. Under W, our anti-terrorism forces have been strengthened. Another 9/11 would have less chance of succeeding now that it did on 9/11/01.

You mentioned running roughshod over international treaties. What treaties to which the US is a signatory did W run roughshod over?

 

[rgraham666]

You mentioned running roughshod over international treaties. What treaties to which the US is a signatory did W run roughshod over?

The UN treaty for one. Which isn't surprising one of the main reasons for the Iraq war was to destroy the UN.

I agree with you about the Sedition Act. A heinous piece of work that was.

A few months ago a person on another forum I frequent announced that it was time to bring the Sedition Act back.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Any sort of attempt at impeachment right now would make the Neocons jump for joy. It would so disgust and alienate the voters that we'd probably end up with Cheney as president in 2008.

Besides, what charges would you even bring against GWB? Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled that what Bush did was legal? Or legal enough? The law itself would be daunting. Are we in a state of war? Does the president have war powers? Lincoln suspended habeus corpus too, as did Roosevelt during WWII if I'm not mistaken so there's precedent. There's nothing criminal in abrogating the Geneva convention or any international treaties.

The Constitution is a set of principles that form the foundation of American government, but there's another set of principles, unwritten but even more important, that keeps us together as a nation, and those are the principles of political co-operation and trust and - as corny as it sounds - goodwill and willingness to operate as a democracy. Any attempt at impeachment now might uphold constitutional principles but would almost certainly threaten this second set - the public comity - and should we lose that, then we're doomed as a society.

If you want to see what a constitutional democracy looks like without that kind of trust and social co-operation, just look at Iraq.

Democracy is a system of co-operation and compromise, not the tyranny of the majority that Bush and Cheney seem to think it is. For the democrats to attempt an impeachment now would just be to conttinue to play this same NeoCon adversarial game we've been seeing for the last 8 years but from the other side. It would only accelerate our slide into a a hopelesly polarized government, and that would be tragic.

I'm old enough to remember a time when Dems and Repubs were loyal opponents, each with their own ideas of how things should be but willing to play the game by the rules (more or less. I grew up In Chicago, after all. ) I think everyone would like to see a return to those days. I know I would, because it seems to me that our democracy is becoming untenable.

I lost all respect for the republicans when they impeached Clinton, because it was so obviously a political ploy that put party power ahead of national interest. I'd hate to see the democrats stoop to the level as well. We've got more important thinsg to do than witness another political dog-and-pony show.

 

[shereads]

Okay. But I still think a nude human pyramid is a good compromise.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

The UN treaty for one. Which isn't surprising one of the main reasons for the Iraq war was to destroy the UN.

I agree with you about the Sedition Act. A heinous piece of work that was.

A few months ago a person on another forum I frequent announced that it was time to bring the Sedition Act back.

In what way is the US violating the UN treaty?

I realize there are some people, mainly Republicans, who want to destroy the UN but that is because of its ineffectiveness.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There was that time that Bush and Rumsfeld held up that 7-11 wearing Bill Clinton masks and then egged the Lincoln Memorial. Maybe they could get him on that?

 

[rgraham666]

In what way is the US violating the UN treaty?

I realize there are some people, mainly Republicans, who want to destroy the UN but that is because of its ineffectiveness.

Because they started a war without UN Security Council sanction. A country cannot attack another under international law. It was illegal when Hussein did it to Kuwait. It was illegal when the U.S. did it to Iraq.

And how is the UN ineffective? Certainly there are wars, and there are troubled nations. But I don't expect the UN to get rid of that any more than I expect the courts and police to get rid of crime.

The important thing is that war, aggressive war, is illegal. That is why the most of the world reacts so badly to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. If the law is overturned, we'll go back to the law of the jungle. Which is a damned unpleasant thing for both nations and individuals.

And how was the UN ineffective? It helped bring the Cuban Missile Crisis to an end. It helped the U.S. pull out of Vietnam with some shreds of dignity. It stopped a major crisis in the Suez. Although not entirely successful, it keeps the Israelis and and the Arabs at arm's length. It does a lot of good through UNICEF and similar organizations.

The people who bitch about the UN fall into two categories, in my opinion.

Either they are perfectionists who regard any specific failure as a complete failure. "The UN didn't work here, therefore it doesn't work at all." Which is horseshit.

Or they're whiners. When they say the UN is ineffective they're really saying, "The UN doesn't let us do what we want to do." They're saying they don't want to play by the rules. Which is worse than horseshit.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Because they started a war without UN Security Council sanction. A country cannot attack another under international law. It was illegal when Hussein did it to Kuwait. It was illegal when the U.S. did it to Iraq.

And how is the UN ineffective? Certainly there are wars, and there are troubled nations. But I don't expect the UN to get rid of that any more than I expect the courts and police to get rid of crime.

The important thing is that war, aggressive war, is illegal. That is why the most of the world reacts so badly to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. If the law is overturned, we'll go back to the law of the jungle. Which is a damned unpleasant thing for both nations and individuals.

And how was the UN ineffective? It helped bring the Cuban Missile Crisis to an end. It helped the U.S. pull out of Vietnam with some shreds of dignity. It stopped a major crisis in the Suez. Although not entirely successful, it keeps the Israelis and and the Arabs at arm's length. It does a lot of good through UNICEF and similar organizations.

The people who bitch about the UN fall into two categories, in my opinion.

Either they are perfectionists who regard any specific failure as a complete failure. "The UN didn't work here, therefore it doesn't work at all." Which is horseshit.

Or they're whiners. When they say the UN is ineffective they're really saying, "The UN doesn't let us do what we want to do." They're saying they don't want to play by the rules. Which is worse than horseshit.

The first Iraq did have UN sanction and the second was basically an extention of the first because Saddam was not living up to his agreements regarding weapons and treatment of his citizens.

I have not called the UN ineffective but some do. As you say, UNICEF and other organizations have done a lot of good. However, there has been more warfare and genocide since the UN began than there was in an equal period before it began. The wars are smaller now but there are more of them and they are nastier.

The UN had little, if anything, to do with solving the Cuban missile crisis. It was JFK going eyeball to eyeball with K. until the latter blinked. The UN had virtually nothing to do with the Vietnam war, except to wring their hands and whimper in distress. The crisis in the Suez ended when the USSR threatened to get involved.

If you think the Arabs and the Israelis are at arms length, talk to the folks in Lebanon. The only reason the Arabs don't try to drive the Israelis into the desert is because they know they would get their asses kicked, as has already happened several times.

I am not one of those people who would want the UN eliminated. As you sad and I concurred, it does some good. So far as international relationships go, I think they are more of a debating club than anything else but they do no real harm and might even do some good.

 

[Oblimo]

Besides, what charges would you even bring against GWB?

Subversive activities in interference with the war in Afghanistan...

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, s. 2388:

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

It would never succeed, and whoever brought it up seriously would be branded a fringe lunatic forever, but it'd be fun to watch.